Discuss your views of the Scottish Referendum with the UK government NOW CLOSED

[MichelleMumsnet]

With fewer than 200 days to go until the Scottish referendum, UK Government has produced the latest edition, in a series of information packs, focussing on money and the economy in the context of the independence debate.

Read more: Scottish independence referendum: Money and the economy.

UK Government wants to find out what Mumsnetters' views are of the Scottish referendum coming up in September. When it comes to the prospect of Scotland going it alone and possible impacts on the economy, like changes in currency and taxes, what are your views? Whether you're Scottish or not we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, "As part of the UK the Scottish economy is growing, inflation is down and more people are in work. By remaining part of the UK, Scottish industry and jobs will be protected by the generous freeze on duties on spirits and the £3bn tax break for oil and gas industries we announced at the Budget, as well as the big cuts in income tax helping 2 million Scottish workers.

This new pack sets out some key facts people in Scotland need to know before the referendum in September. I urge everyone to read up on the facts and understand the true benefits being part of the United Kingdom brings to Scotland."

Mumsnet will be hosting various content and activity in the run up to the referendum from all sides of the debate, so do keep a look out for these in the coming months.

Thanks,

MNHQ

The vote for devolution was the same.

I just think that if you are going to be considered a citizen (and the proposal is that 'on day one of independence, all British citizens who live in Scotland and all British citizens born in Scotland but residing elsewhere would automatically be considered Scottish citizens.) you deserve a vote in the election.

Postal votes and things would be a hassle, but the administration would have to be done for citizenship anyway.

The vote for devolution wasn't changing peoples' citizenship though.

I've just noticed the wording of that. Our proposal is that on day one of independence.... blah blah blah

Would this have to be negotiated too then?

youcant
I'll dig up the poll, but basically undecideds are being converted into Yes and No in equal measure.

Sorry, I should have made my comments more clear. I meant that people can be persuaded to change their minds. That they can be not settled on a position. I didn't mean that was always in a Yes direction. I'm sure folk could be persuaded to vote No.

Also, I'd never considered folk might be lying in the debate audience. Clearly I'm too naive for this game.

Will catch up on more recent comments later.

Tiny correction, ItsAll, it's not only Scots who have the vote

Sorry - lazy typing I meant Scots as in those living in Scotland as opposed to some other definition of "Scottishness"

I've just noticed the wording of that. Our proposal is that on day one of independence.... blah blah blah

Would this have to be negotiated too then?

As I understand it everything is up for negotiation. The various white papers are setting out UKGov, and ScotGov preferred outcomes and negotiating positions - but I don't think anything is set in stone, except, hopefully, some sort of independence if Scots vote yes.

Nobody will change my mind. I'm not voting. I can't stand politics in any shape or form. Liars and thieves the lot of em.

Nobody will change my mind. I'm not voting. I can't stand politics in any shape or form. Liars and thieves the lot of em

Fair enough. As long as you are sure there will be no regrets.

Yep, all up for negotiation (I find this absolutely terrifying). Long chapter on it here

An independent Scottish state would be unable to settle the issue of citizenship by the retrospective application of earlier legislation; as this does not exist.

Imogen I am a strong believer that if you do not vote, you should not complain! Please, please vote. This is so important. Do you have DC? Are they old enough to have an opinion? You could vote for them.

Dh had a big argument with my parents once as they felt it was important to vote - especially important for them having left South Africa because (at the time) 20 million people weren't allowed to vote purely because of the colour of their skin.

However, they accepted that he was making use of his right to vote as he would always go along to the polling station and spoil his paper, writing "None of the above"

Nobody will change my mind. I'm not voting. I can't stand politics in any shape or form. Liars and thieves the lot of em

THIS ^^ is the very reason I'm voting.

It's not an election. We're not choosing politicians.

It's a chance to form a new, local, accountable government where liars and thieves can't hide and where we have the ability to vote out those who fail to fulfill their promise to represent us.

It's the only way to make politics honest, relevant and functional, and if the lack of integrity shown by politicians makes you sick then vote yes and we'll at last have the power to kick them out.

It's a chance to form a new, local, accountable government where liars and thieves can't hide and where we have the ability to vote out those who fail to fulfill their promise to represent u

Have you seen the constitution cashew? Where are these claims coming from?

It's a chance to form a new, local, accountable government where liars and thieves can't hide and where we have the ability to vote out those who fail to fulfill their promise to represent u

Have you seen the constitution cashew? Where are these claims coming from

I'm not sure how much easier they will be to vote out if the majority of Scots want them, but at least people will be voted in on Scottish votes, and Scots will be governed by people voted for by Scots, rather than the population of SE Engflansd...

Except you want Westminster to dictate your economy (currency union) and immigration (common travel area).

"This is not an election, we are not choosing politicians?"

Of course we are. We are being asked to be ruled by politics from Edinburgh. It all makes me laugh. Scots are being played from all sides, how do you make a informed decision when you are being played.

Salmond is a chancer who is so stupid he can't even think of "what might happen if the other side won't play ball" Do you really trust somebody like that to lead a country into the future. His whole argument is based on income from Oil. I'll be dead and buried by the time the oil is gone, but my bairns won't. What will we be leaving them?

Just so people don't think I'm a "anti Salmond" voter sitting on the fence.

The idea that Scotland couldn't pay it's way is just as stupid. Scottish taxpayers contribute more in real terms than their English counterparts, and that's a government fact. We''ll have a £8 billion balance of trade deficit the "No" voters crow. Brilliant. If we stay as we are we will buy into a £1.22 trillion UK deficit that's growing every day.

I'm still not voting.

Except you want Westminster to dictate your economy (currency union) and immigration (common travel area)

That old chestnut...

I very much doubt any country in the world is truly independent. Every country has to enter into various agreements with other countries. Is the UK not an independent country because it is in the EU? Is the US not and independent country because it is in NATO?

How would an independent Scotland be truly independent. Salmond is pushing for closer ties with Europe.

This vote isn't about Salmond, or the SNP. Once we vote yes, we can elect whatever gvt, with whatever policies, we choose. Sheesh, we might even go back to the 50's and put the Tories in charge at Holyrood! (Unlikely, I'll grant you, in the immediate future...)

There's a good chance that after the referendum Salmond will retire from politics, his wife is a good bit older than him and not in the best of health.

There is a difference between being in the EU and actively wanting a currency union where your spending will have to be signed off by the bank of a foreign country.

The problem is that it is about Salmond and the SNP.

This has come about because Scotland just cannot move on from the dark days of socialism. The Scot's rejected Thatcher (Rightly) but could never get rid of the socialist thinking and ingrained dogma. Too many Scots still have the "something for nothing" mentality. Salmond has realised this and given the Scot's what they wanted. The SNP is socialist leaning and how the Scots love it.

But can we go back to that and thrive. I doubt it.

Re currency unions this is well worth a read:
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/7432

Makes a change from the SNP being called "Nazis" and "Tartan Tories", I suppose.

When we got our Parliament, the voting system was set up in such a way that no one party should ever have been able to form a majority gvt, which is why it was such a shock when the SNP did just that. Post a yes vote, it's unlikely that any party will do it again, so we should have "government by concensus", not "Dictatorship by Eck".

That transcript doesn't say anything different though. Carney says it could work, but it requires ceding of national sovereignty.

In a currency union (which has still been officially ruled out) there would need to be some form of fiscal arrangement put in place, at a minimum fiscal rules.

a) Why do you want to have rules imposed on you by a foreign country?
b) Why would that foreign country want to share with you, when you have just walked away from them?

There seems to be this suggestion that Scotland would get a 10% share, as in a tenth of the representation on the Monetary Policy Committee, but this is not how the MPC works and it's not easy or simple to change that. No one sits on the MPC as a representative of London, Wales, Newcastle etc.

The House of Lords called 'the proposal for the Scottish Government to exert some influence over the Bank of England, let alone the rest of the UK exchequer... devoid of precedent and entirely fanciful.' here

a) Why do you want to have rules imposed on you by a foreign country?

Because it may be in Scotland's best interests.

b) Why would that foreign country want to share with you, when you have just walked away from them?

Because it would be in their best interests.

There seems to be this suggestion that Scotland would get a 10% share, as in a tenth of the representation on the Monetary Policy Committee, but this is not how the MPC works and it's not easy or simple to change that. No one sits on the MPC as a representative of London, Wales, Newcastle etc.

Economics is not my strong point (as you can tell). But I think BOE has two facets? A kind of regulatory side, and a kind of hard cash kind of side.

I think iScotland should be entitled to a fair share of the hard cash currency union or not.

There influence on the regulatory side of things would be up for negotiation. No currency union, no influence. Both if both sides wanted a currency union, then as an independent country (unlike Newcastle etc) Scotland should have a say. If Scotland had no say I would imagine there would be no currency union.

That transcript doesn't say anything different though

You misunderstand me, I didn't post that to prove a point, I posted it because it is the best independent analysis of the currency union situation that I have found, and I thought it might be useful to others following this thread.

Because it would be in their best interests.

Why?

The two sides would have to reach an agreement on conditions that satisfied their economic interests. Do you really see that happening? Who is going to win in this case- the representatives of 5 million or the representatives of 58 million?

What does iScotland have to bargain with? rUK does less trade with Scotland than with the USA and with the Eurozone. Why would they unite with Scotland instead of either of those options?

Don't forget Scotland's large financial sector and dependence on oil?

I think iScotland should be entitled to a fair share of the hard cash currency union or not.

Yes, iScotland would get a share of the reserves.

Both if both sides wanted a currency union, then as an independent country (unlike Newcastle etc) Scotland should have a say. If Scotland had no say I would imagine there would be no currency union.

But only one side wants a currency union.

So what happens next?

I didn't think it was the clearest link out there! This is very good.

Because it would be in their best interests.

Why?

Trade. Ease of separation. The debt (as in would still be backed by Scottish GDP/oil). Cross border travel (as opposed to for eg US as you suggested)

Don't forget Scotland's large financial sector and dependence on oil?

Financial sector an issue and could probably do with reduction. Oil not an issue. Graphic linked to above shows Scotland has many other strings to its bow.

But only one side wants a currency union.

So what happens next?

Scotland pursues one of the many other options.

I didn't think it was the clearest link out there! This is very good.

Ack! I'm note a fano of links that start downloads. The problem with your link is that as an official UK gov thingy it is in no way neutral, and is biased towards the No. Hence why I didn't link to the Scot Gov stuff as they are obviously biased too.

Both sides have experts that say what they want them to. It all comes down to what is actually negotiated on the day.